Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

246 part two
Commentary on the Law, and from previous studies by E. Bréhier and
H. A. Wolfson, the author illustrates the double function of the Logos as image
of God and paradigm of the cosmos. He concludes that there are three levels
in the status of ideas according to Philo: (1) before creation, as infinite
power of God; (2) as created ideas, immanent in the divine Mind, which form
the intelligible world; (3) as emanated ideas, reflected in the sensible world.
(JPM)
20334. B. Decharneux, ‘Entre le pouvoir et sacré: Philon d’Alexandrie,
ambassadeur près du “divin” Caius,’ Problèmes d’Histoire des Religions
13 (2003) 21–27.
The treatises Flacc.andLegat. are often typified as historical, but according to
the author they are to be viewed as writings on political philosophy and not as
works which attempt to establish some kind of ‘historical truth.’ As a participant
in the events he records, Philo is too engaged a witness to be a reliable informant.
Legat. 359 illustrates his philosophical point of view when he is confronted with
the absolute power of Caligula. Philo’s personages develop in the course of his
political writings (Ios., Mos.) like puppets which symbolize differing postures.
They play the terrible game of sacral power, constantly mixing up their human
identity with that of the gods. Flaccus is a pretender. Caligula is an imitator of the
divine. In contrast, Philo’s heroes—Joseph, Moses or even Agrippa—represent
unity in the face of worldly diversity; rejecting power games, they take up the
mission of being intermediaries in the bosom of a universe of which God is the
sole monarch. (JR)
20335. D. S. Dodson, ‘Philo’s De Somniis in the Context of Ancient
Dream Theories and Classifications,’ Perspectives in Religious Studies 30
(2003) 299–312.
Dodson surveys Greco-Roman dream theories and classifications and considers
Philo’s discussion in Somn. within this context. Homer and Plato distinguish
between dreams that come true and those that do not, but neither
writer classifies dreams more formally. Other ancient thinkers who do classify
dreams are Herophilus, Artemidorus, Macrobius and Posidonius. Questions
behind the classifications of the first three thinkers pertain to whether
or not a dream is predictive, and Artemidorus and Macrobius are also interested
in whether a predictive dream requires interpretation or is straightforward.
Underlying Posidonius’ approach is the issue of how humans can, with
divine help, gain knowledge of the future through their dreams. Philo shows
familiarity with these contemporary ideas about dreams, and his dream classification
in Somn. ‘has a practical correlation with the dream theory of Artemidorus/Macrobius
and a formal one with the dream classification of Posidonius’
(p. 311). (EB)